On January 21, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will hear California
Democratic Party v Jones, 99-401. This is the case in which the
Democratic, Republican, Libertarian and Peace & Freedom Parties all sued to
overturn the new California "blanket primary" initiative passed by the voters in
1996. The case will be argued in April and an opinion will be issued no later
than July 2000. The Court asked for expedited briefing.

The parties argue that the First Amendment provision on freedom of
association gives them the right to decide for themselves who will vote in their
primaries. All of the parties have bylaws which say that only party members may
choose party nominees. State law disregards these party rules and requires the
parties to admit all voters into their primaries.

A group of political scientists who specialize in the study of political
parties are expected to file an amicus curiae with the Court, arguing
that the political system works better if parties are allowed to decide for
themselves whether to let non-members vote in their primaries.

In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that parties should be allowed to
decide for themselves which voters may choose party nominees. However, that
case, Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, involved an
opposite set of facts. In the Connecticut case, the Republican Party wanted to
permit independents to vote in its primaries (although state law forbade it). By
contrast, in the California case, the political parties don't want members of
other parties voting in their primaries.

The lower federal courts in the California case refused to follow the
Tashjian precedent, arguing that whereas the Constitution might
give parties a right to expand the types of voters eligible to vote in their
primaries, it doesn't work in reverse.

Of course, the four California political parties argue that the U.S.
Constitution is neutral on the question of what kind of primary is preferred.
The parties say that the guiding principle must be either that the
parties may decide this matter for themselves, or that they may not; but
it's logically faulty to apply the principle in one situation, and not in the
opposite situation.

Ballot Access Implications

If the political parties win the case, and the Court rules that parties do
have a right to decide for themselves that only members may choose party
candidates, it is likely that ballot access restrictions in 7 states could be
overturned in court:

1. Alaska: if a blanket primary may not be forced on political parties
without their consent, Alaska will abandon its blanket primary, since three
qualified parties (Republican, Alaskan Independence and Libertarian) are already
opposed to it. Without a blanket primary, Alaska won't be able to force
independent candidates, and candidates of non-qualified parties, to participate
in the blanket primary, since there won't be one.

And if independents and unqualified party candidates need not participate in
a primary, the early petition deadlines for such candidates cannot be enforced.
Alaska once had a June 1 petition deadline for independent and nonqualified
party candidates, but it was struck down in a 1988 lawsuit brought by a
Libertarian. The legislature then changed the petition deadline to August 1.
That deadline was held unconstitutional in a 1990 lawsuit brought by a Green
Party candidate (neither party was a qualified party at the time). The
legislature then changed the deadline to late August, but later it moved it back
to June 1 on the excuse that these candidates should run in the blanket primary
held in August.

In the future, with no primary involvement for independent and unqualified
party candidates, the excuse for the early deadline (for this kind of candidate)
won't exist any longer.

2. Washington: another blanket primary state, in which minor party and
independent candidates must run in that blanket primary and may not advance to
the general election unless they poll 1% of the primary vote. Under this rule,
in place since 1977, no minor party candidate for Governor or U.S. Senator has
ever qualified for the general election. If a qualified party in
Washington says that it doesn't wish to participate in a blanket primary any
longer, the state can't hold one, and then there can't be a primary vote test
for minor parties and independents.

The only qualified parties in Washington are Democratic and Republican. The
Democratic Party filed a lawsuit in 1979 to escape the blanket primary (it
lost). It is not known if either the Democratic or Republican Parties of
Washington state are still opposed to a blanket primary.

3. Maine: although this state improved ballot access in 1999, there is
still a big problem for qualified minor parties (Reform and Green). The problem
is that they can only nominate by primary, and their statewide candidates need
2,000 signatures to get on their own party's primary ballots. Neither party has
many more members than that, so it's almost impossible for their members to get
on their own primary ballots. But if the Supreme Court says that all parties may
decide for themselves who may vote in their primaries, then these parties can
pass bylaws that any registered voter may vote in their primaries; and then,
logically, any registered voter could sign a petition to get members of these
parties on their own party's primary ballot.

If any registered voter could sign the primary petitions, it wouldn't be
difficult to get 2,000 signatures.

4. Massachusetts: is similar to Maine, except that the primary
petitions for some statewide office require 10,000 signatures of party members
or independent voters. If any registered voter could sign (under the scenario in
the Maine paragraph above), it would be much easier for small qualified parties
to get those signatures (currently, the only qualified parties in Massachusetts
are Democratic, Republican and Libertarian).

5. Pennsylvania: provides that a party is "qualified" if it polled
slightly more than 1% of the vote in the last election for any of its statewide
candidates. Under this lenient standard, the Libertarian and Constitution
Parties are currently "qualified". But there is a catch: a qualified party with
registration membership less than 15% of the statewide total may not place
candidates on the general election ballot unless they submit the same large
number of signatures that unqualified parties need.

If the Supreme Court holds that parties may restrict the party nomination
procedure so that only party members may choose the nominees, it should be
possible to argue that the Pennsylvania scheme for small qualified parties is
unconstitutional, since it forces the qualified parties to ask tens of thousands
of non-members to participate in nominating the party's nominees.

In 1984 and 1985, Pennsylvania state and federal courts both ruled that it
would be unconstitutional for the state to require a party to have any specified
minimum number of registrants in order to be considered "qualified". Therefore,
the state cannot escape its dilemma by simply revising its laws to require
qualified parties to have a large number of registered members. Pennsylvania
will probably eventually revert to the system in place before 1986, when all
qualified parties were treated equally and were able to nominate by primary.

6. Maryland: is similar to Pennsylvania. Even after a party is
"qualified" (by means of submitting a petition signed by 10,000 voters), if it
has registration below 1% of the total, it cannot nominate any candidates
(except for president) unless it gets tens of thousands of non-members to sign
for them. Even though Maryland improved its ballot access laws in 1998, they are
still among the most restrictive in the nation.

7. New Mexico: is similar to Pennsylvania and Maryland. Even after a
party is "qualified" (by means of submitting a petition signed by one-half of 1%
of the last vote cast), if it is a minor party, it must get thousands of
non-members to sign for its nominees, in order to nominate them. As in
Pennsylvania, a federal court (in 1988) already ruled that it would be
unconstitutional to force a minor party to have any specified minimum number of
registrants in order to be qualified. So the state cannot escape its dilemma by
simply requiring qualified minor parties to have a large number of registered
members.

Why the Ballot Access Laws of More States Aren't Implicated

Even if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that parties may control who
participates in their candidate selection, and the ballot access laws described
above are invalidated, states could still have numerical requirements for ballot
access for parties, of course. States could still require an unqualified party
to submit a petition signed by non-members, saying that they desire that party
to be recognized. This is what most states currently require, and nothing would
change for that method.

What would change is that, once a party became "qualified" in a state, the
state could no longer place discriminatory ballot access roadblocks in its path.

On December 30, 1999, a West Virginia state court said that voters cannot
sign a petition for a minor party or independent candidate, and then vote in a
primary. Giardina v Hechler, 99-c-2058, Kanawha County.

Judge Herman Canady said nothing about the constitutionality of the law; he
merely interpreted it. The law doesn't say that voters cannot both sign a
petition, and vote in the primary. It only says that petitioners must tell
voters that they can't do both; and it also says that there is no penalty for
voters who do both.

The case had been brought by the Mountain Party, which is trying to get on
the ballot for Governor. The Mountain Party is somewhat similar to the Green
Party.

Both the Mountain Party and the defendant Secretary of State had argued that
voters can sign a petition and vote in the primary. But the Democratic Party
intervened and argued that they can't, and the Democratic Party won the case.

The Mountain Party is appealing to the State Supreme Court. It is also about
to file a lawsuit in federal court, alleging that the primary screen-out,
combined with the high number of signatures and the May deadline (for office
other than president) in combination, is unconstitutional. The 1999 legislature
doubled the number of signatures from 1% of the last vote cast, to 2%. The only
minor parties already on the West Virginia ballot are the Libertarian Party,
which met the vote test in 1996, and the Natural Law Party, which cleverly
petitioned before the new law (doubling the number of signatures) went into
effect last year.

The Mountain Party federal case will also argue that since the Natural Law
Party got on the 2000 ballot with a 1% petition, the state must let other
petitioning parties on in 2000 with a 1% petition.

On January 6, the Commission on Presidential Debates finally bowed to the
lawsuits, congressional bills, and petitions to the FEC. For the first time, it
set objective criteria on whom should be invited into general election
presidential debates.

The criteria are so severe, the only minor party or independent presidential
candidate who would have met them in the last 60 years would have been George
Wallace in 1968. The Commission said candidates must be at 15% in the polls in
late September. The Commission didn't name the five polls, but they will be the
joint polls sponsored by the major TV networks in partnership with the New
York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street
Journal or USA Today.

In 1968, George Wallace was at 21% in the Gallup Poll released September 29,
so he would have qualified. In the election, he polled 13.5%.

In 1980 John Anderson was at 13% in a Washington Post poll
announced on September 15, and at 14% in a New York Times/CBS poll
announced on September 17, so he would not have qualified. In 1980, the League
of Women Voters was running the general election presidential debates, and it
invited Anderson into the debates. He debated once with Ronald Reagan, but
Carter refused to participate. Anderson polled 6.6% in the election.

In 1992, Ross Perot was at 14% in the Washington Post/ABC Poll
released on September 29, and at 7% in a CNN/USA Today poll
announced on October 2, so he would not have qualified. However, the Commission
on Presidential Debates did include him in the debates, and he polled 18.9% in
the election.

In 1996, Perot was at 5% in a New York Times/CBS poll announced
on October 16. He was not in the debates, and polled 8.4% in the election.

Debates Commission Refuses to Respond to Criticism

The Commission's 15% rule was immediately criticized, on these and other
grounds:

1. During primary season 2000, there have been seven Republican presidential
primary debates which included all six candidates who are on the ballot in
almost all Republican primaries. The press has reported that these debates have
been successful. Columnist E. J. Dionne said on January 17, about the primary
season debates, "Every one of these candidates -- Bauer, Bradley, Bush, Forbes,
Gore, Hatch, Keyes and McCain -- deserves a measure of public gratitude for
going through this debate marathon. That much-cited Harvard study, a weekly
survey of voter interest in the campaign, suggests citizens may feel this way
themselves. The proportion of Americans who said they had thought about the
campaign more than tripled -- to 34 percent during this month's debate-heavy
week, up from 11 percent the week before... The lesson is that multiple debates
work and we should have them this fall."

The obvious success of the 2000 Republican debates has proved that
6-candidate debates can work well. The Commission could have agreed to invite
any candidate for who is on the ballot in states containing a majority of
electoral votes. Under that criteria, in all United States history, there would
only twice have been a debate with more than six candidates (in 1976 and
1980, there would have been seven).

2. As noted above, the Commission itself invited Perot into the 1992 debates,
and the League of Women Voters invited Anderson in 1980. Neither would have
qualified under the new rules. So, the new rules are actually more restrictive
than policy which was in force in the past.

3. Polls in Minnesota's gubernatorial race in September 1998 generally showed
Jesse Ventura polling below 15% of the vote. Ventura was invited into the
debates anyway, but under the Commission's rules, he would have been barred.

4. The criteria are not specific enough. If five different debates must be
averaged to see if a candidate has 15% support, what will happen if an average
works out to 14.8%? Would the Commission round up?

Sometimes polls provide data for all voters and "likely voters". Which
results count? What happens if the polling companies refuse even to list
potential candidates?

The Commission has not responded to any of these criticisms. Instead, it put
out its usual boilerplate that there are over 100 candidates for president in
2000. It arrives at this figure by counting every individual who tells the FEC
that he or she is running for president. The vast majority of these people do
not get on the general election ballot in any state. The Commission's argument
is irrelevant.

Various ideas have been proposed to alter the Commission's criteria, such as
boycotting Anheuser-Busch, the leading corporate donor to the Commission on
Presidential Debates; or encouraging talk-radio call-ins; or construction of a
website to make it easy for the public to send messages of support for inclusive
debates. At events where major presidential candidates have spoken, members of
the Libertarian, Natural Law and Reform Parties have been asking them to agree
to inclusive general election debates, should they be the nominee. Alan Keyes
has agreed.

HB 672, introduced last year, passed the House Government Affairs on January
25 unanimously. It greatly improves ballot access. Senator Donzella James just
introduced the same bill in the Senate, SB 358.

On January 25, the New Mexico Libertarian Party filed a lawsuit in State
District Court in Santa Fe, to force elections officials to process registration
cards for people who recently registered "Libertarian". The party needs to
increase its registration to .3%, in order to maintain its status as a major
party. The Secretary of State says some paid workers for the party tricked
people into registering with the party, and therefore won't process any new
Libertarian registrations. The party had filed in the State Supreme Court
earlier, but on January 24 that Court refused to hear the case, Libt Pty v
Vigil-Giron, 26156.

1. Arizona: SB 1372 would let any registered voter sign a petition to
place an independent candidate on the ballot, and also let any registered voter
(regardless of party) sign to place a candidate on a partisan primary ballot.

2. Mississippi: HB 242 would raise filing fees for state office.
Statewide fees would go from $200 to $1,000; legislature from $15 to $350.

3. Nebraska: LB 935 would permit write-ins for president.

4. New Jersey: A110 would require petitions to show the date and place
of birth of the candidate. If the candidate were foreign-born, the petition
would show the naturalization date.

5. New York: S6350 would place anyone on the presidential primary
ballot who qualified for primary season matching funds, with no need for a
petition.

6. South Dakota: HB 1231 would move the independent presidential
petition deadline from June to August.

7. Tennessee: SB 2149 would let candidates who use the independent
petition procedure choose a partisan label, which would be printed on the
candidate's petition and on the November ballot.

8. Vermont: H 675 would specify more detailed organizational
requirements for minor parties, and would force them to begin their caucus
meetings no later than mid-October of the year before the election.

9. Virginia: HB 807 would provide that the state print party labels on
the ballot (currently, the state doesn't print any party labels for anyone,
except for presidential candidates).

On January 21, the Voting Integrity Project filed a lawsuit in federal court
against the Arizona Democratic Party's presidential primary, on the grounds that
it violates the Voting Rights Act. The party plans to try internet voting, but
it didn't ask the U.S. Justice Department for permission. Voting Integrity
Project v Fleisher, cv 109-PHX-PGR.

On January 24, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Missouri's $1,075 contribution
limits to candidates for statewide office, and $275 for legislative candidates.
Nixon v Shrink Missouri Government PAC, no. 98-963. The vote was
6-3. The dissenters were Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence
Thomas.

Back in 1976, the same Court had upheld $1,000 contribution limits for
federal office, but had ruled that expenditures could not be limited unless
public financing was in place. Therefore, it wasn't too surprising that the
Court again upheld contribution limits. The more significant part of the ruling
was that the $275 limit was approved for legislative candidates.

Although the case was not about expenditure limits, advocates of expenditure
limits were very pleased that Justice John Paul Stevens wrote separately to say,
"The right to use one's own money to fund 'speech by proxy' certainly merits
significant constitutional protection; this property right, however, is not
entitled to the same protection as the right to say what one pleases." Also,
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, "It might prove possible to reinterpret aspects of
Buckley, making less absolute the contribution/expenditure line, particularly in
respect to independently wealthy candidates."

Sharpe Reference published The Encyclopedia of the Democratic
Party and The Encyclopedia of the Republican Party in 1997.
The new Encyclopedia completes the set.

Part One contains a historical summary of each of eight eras in U.S. history,
an essay on the future of minor parties, and a 24-page history of U.S. ballot
access laws.

Part Two contains forty 4-color maps of the United States. Each map shows all
3,000+ counties and is meant to illustrate (for a given minor party or
independent presidential candidate) where that candidate polled relatively high
and low percentages of the vote. There is a map for every minor party or
independent presidential candidate who polled at least 1% of the vote, for all
years 1880 through the present. There are also a few maps for significant
candidates who didn't poll as much as 1%.

Part Three contains articles about 92 political parties. The bulk of the
Encyclopedia, containing 440 pages, is found here. 73 different authors, most of
them Political Science or History Professors, contributed to this section. Each
entry contains a Bibliography.

Part Four contains short biographies of 175 persons associated with the
political parties covered in the book. Finally, there is a Glossary, a
Bibliography, and 3 indexes.

Unfortunately, some important minor parties were omitted, such as the
National Democratic Party of 1896, William Randolph Hearst's Independence Party
of 1906-1908; the Single Tax Party; the Farmer-Labor Party of 1918-1932; the
U.S. Labor Party of 1973-1979 (although there is a biographical entry for the
party's leader, Lyndon LaRouche); and the Populist Party of 1984-1995.

The biographies in Part Four were modeled on a similar section in the
Republican and Democratic Encyclopedias. However, the standards for whom to
include in the major party Encyclopedias were objective: Presidents,
Vice-presidents, losing presidential nominees, Speakers of the House, Members of
Congress, and Governors. By contrast, there is no objective standard for the
Biographies in the Third Party Encyclopedia, and the section is badly
unbalanced.

However, the imperfections of the work are minor, compared to its overall
usefulness. If you want to use the Encyclopedia and you can't afford it,
encourage your local public or college library to buy it. Librarians know that
M. E. Sharpe is a leading publisher of reference books.

"Deadline" refers to procedure with the LATEST deadline. * means entry
has changed since last issue. # means that candidate procedure allows a partisan
label. Other multi-state parties on the ballot: in Florida, the American Reform,
Southern, Socialist Workers and Socialist Parties. The Socialist Party has *100
signatures in New Jersey. The Mountain Party has *6,500 in West Virginia.

On December 30, 1999, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Alsup of St. Paul,
Minnesota, ruled that he lacked jurisdiction to decide the dispute over where
the national convention should be held. Reform Party of Minnesota v Reform
Party of the U.S., 99-civ-2053. However, on January 1, new national
chairman Jack Gargan took office, and he appointed a new parliamentarian, who
ruled a few days later that the November 1999 vote of the national committee,
setting the convention in St. Paul, was valid. That national committee vote had
been by phone and mail, and national party rules are vague as to whether that
qualifies as a "meeting".

The party's national executive committee, which has a majority opposed to
holding the convention in St. Paul, then voted to call a physical meeting of the
national committee to decide the issue. This meeting will be in Nashville,
Tennessee, on February 12. It is the first time in Reform Party history that the
national committee has met (except when it has met at national conventions).

Pat Buchanan is the only contender for the Reform Party nomination who is
actively petitioning. Under party rules, no one may be on the Reform Party
mail-in primary ballot, unless he has petitioned either to get the Reform Party
on the ballot, or himself on as an independent. Buchanan has just signed
contracts with paid petitioning firms to start collecting in Georgia, North
Carolina, and Oklahoma, three of the most difficult states.

John B. Anderson, former Congressman and independent presidential candidate
in 1980, was placed on the California Reform Party presidential primary ballot
on December 30, the last possible day. The Reform Party asked the Secretary of
State to list him. Anderson consented, but has not said that he will seek the
nomination. Anderson, 77, is Chairman of the Center for Voting and Democracy.

Two Reform Party state conventions recently held straw polls for president.
On January 22, Pat Buchanan won in Florida. On January 23, at the Minnesota-Iowa
meeting, John Hagelin won.

Ralph Nader, Green presidential candidate in 1996, is expected to announce on
February 7 that he will again seek the party's nomination. He also is expected
to say that Winona LaDuke is his choice for vice-president, and that if
nominated, he will raise substantial campaign funds.

Last month, Professor Richard Ebeling of Michigan declined to run for
vice-president as a Libertarian. The front-runner for the party's presidential
nomination, Harry Browne, had tried to persuade Ebeling to run with him.

On January 10, Congressman Virgil H. Goode of Virginia's 5th district said
that he will run for re-election as an independent. The 5th district is the
south central part of Virginia. In 1998, Goode was elected as a Democrat.

In December 1999, the Progressive Coalition of Vermont established itself as
a qualified minor party, for the first time. The Progressive Coalition has been
winning elections in Vermont for a decade. It currently holds three state
legislators and the Mayoralty of Burlington, the largest city in the state.
However, it has never before qualified as a party. Instead, it has been placing
its candidates on the ballot with the independent candidate procedure. Vermont,
like most states, permits candidates who use the independent petition procedure
to choose a partisan label, which is placed on the November ballot next to the
candidates' names; this is how the Progressive Coalition has been operating.

Congressman Bernie Sanders, who always appears on the ballot with the label
"independent", plans to continue using that label, even though he is a leader of
the Progressive Coalition. However, the Progressive Coalition, which is now the
"Vermont Progressive Party" does plan to run a candidate for Governor this year,
and perhaps for U.S. Senate as well. It will nominate by convention.